For those who label themselves "Trads"

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='974085' date='May 6 2006, 09:13 PM']
Cam, you seem to say it has authority on its own grounds, but why would there be an Apostolic Constitution to give it authority that isn't even universal?
[/quote]

That logic is faulty. The Catechism is without error. Plain and simple. However, even dogma has Apostolic Consitution surrounding it. What is the defining document of the Immaculate Conception? What is the defining document of the Assumption?

Dogma is dogma because the Church has declared the truth of the dogma publicly. Doctrine is doctrine, because the Church has declared it. The Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith and is a direct outpouring of Vatican Council II because the Church has declared it.

The Catechism is inerrant. If it contains error, show me where. Your view of the Catechism is incorrect. It always has been. I think that you oppose me on this simply to oppose me. Like I said, you need to study the Catechism and its history. It is something that you are missing the point on.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='975887' date='May 9 2006, 12:05 AM']
What do you mean?
[/quote]

i mean my impression of most ultra-traditionalists is that they see the Church today as in error.... so, can a person be Catholic and "ultra"-traditionalist?

not to swerve this conversation into the realm of most modern philosophy after Wittgenstein... but we need to look at the language we are using and how is it that we can say what it is that we say. for instance, how is that we can call someone Catholic and ultra-traditionalist without looking at the language....


**sorry, i've got a metaphysics final today, so I'm likely praticing here, lol**

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dspen2005' post='975955' date='May 9 2006, 05:20 AM']
i mean my impression of most ultra-traditionalists is that they see the Church today as in error.... so, can a person be Catholic and "ultra"-traditionalist?

not to swerve this conversation into the realm of most modern philosophy after Wittgenstein... but we need to look at the language we are using and how is it that we can say what it is that we say. for instance, how is that we can call someone Catholic and ultra-traditionalist without looking at the language....
**sorry, i've got a metaphysics final today, so I'm likely praticing here, lol**
[/quote]

haha, I see what your saying now. Metaphysics . Anyways okay, I would be the wrong person to ask as I certainly am one that would be considered an "ultra-traditionalist". I just consider myself Catholic, but clearly many have other views on this. But see my sig for the opinion of a respected pre-Vat II Theological source. It says even the most "extreme" traditionalists, the Sedevacantist(which I currently am), cannot be considered a schismatic. So I would say that at least the pre-Vat II answer is that an ultra-traditionalist, at least the sedes, should be considered Catholic.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' post='975950' date='May 9 2006, 04:41 AM']That logic is faulty. The Catechism is without error. Plain and simple. However, even dogma has Apostolic Consitution surrounding it. What is the defining document of the Immaculate Conception? What is the defining document of the Assumption?

Dogma is dogma because the Church has declared the truth of the dogma publicly. Doctrine is doctrine, because the Church has declared it. The Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith and is a direct outpouring of Vatican Council II because the Church has declared it.

The Catechism is inerrant. If it contains error, show me where. Your view of the Catechism is incorrect. It always has been. I think that you oppose me on this simply to oppose me. Like I said, you need to study the Catechism and its history. It is something that you are missing the point on. [/quote]

Where did I say the Catechism is in error?



Andy, I don't oppose you just to oppose you, and I wasn't here. I disagreed with what you've said. You give the Catechism too much credit, but my saying that doesn't mean that I reject the Catechism or think it's in error.



The quote you responded to up there actually says that its authority is not its own. That in now way implies that it is erroneous. However, I do think it has some possibility for error because not everything in there are faith or morals, as I think Mikey pointed out up above.



I think I said in a post on the other side of this thread that were the Catechism in error I wouldn't point it out or question anything that is in the way of faith or morals.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So either everything in the catechism is faith or morals and qnolf is mistaken, or this this uncertainty is just anything string of misunderstandings

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='976581' date='May 9 2006, 06:14 PM']
Where did I say the Catechism is in error?
Andy, I don't oppose you just to oppose you, and I wasn't here. I disagreed with what you've said. You give the Catechism too much credit, but my saying that doesn't mean that I reject the Catechism or think it's in error.
The quote you responded to up there actually says that its authority is not its own. That in now way implies that it is erroneous. However, I do think it has some possibility for error because not everything in there are faith or morals, as I think Mikey pointed out up above.
I think I said in a post on the other side of this thread that were the Catechism in error I wouldn't point it out or question anything that is in the way of faith or morals.
[/quote]

You said, POINT BLANK:

[quote]Long story, but I don't think all things in the Catechism are necessarily true and/or authoritative....[/quote]

If there are things in the Catechism that are not necessarily true, then it must be false. If it is false, then it is an error. Basic logic.

I give the Catechism the credit it is due. And I do think that regardless of what I say, you will oppose me.....

Again, you are speaking around yourself.....you say:
[quote]I do think it has some possibility for error because not everything in there are faith or morals....[/quote]
[quote]I think I said in a post on the other side of this thread that were the Catechism in error I wouldn't point it out or question anything that is in the way of faith or morals.[/quote]

So which is it? Is the Catechism contain error or does it not? If it does, then the Magisterium is erroneous and where will that lead us? If it is not, you are mistaken and you need to recant your position and re-evaluate it.

When you answer these, you need to defend that position with proof and checks....if you cannot, then you must concede.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' post='977842' date='May 10 2006, 08:46 PM']
If there are things in the Catechism that are not necessarily true, then it must be false. If it is false, then it is an error. Basic logic.[/quote]

No, if they're not necessarily true then they can be changed.

Doesn't mean I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean all in there is set in stone.

[quote]I give the Catechism the credit it is due. And I do think that regardless of what I say, you will oppose me.....[/quote]

What if I agreed with this. :

Funny thing is you opposed me first. You're getting pretty good about twisting things around on me.

I actually have to disagree. I agree with a lot you say, just not about the Catechism, as you know well.

[quote]Again, you are speaking around yourself.....you say:[/quote]

I'll be honest, I think it's both. Not all is about faith or morals and some has the possibility of error.

[quote]So which is it? Is the Catechism contain error or does it not? If it does, then the Magisterium is erroneous and where will that lead us? If it is not, you are mistaken and you need to recant your position and re-evaluate it.

When you answer these, you need to defend that position with proof and checks....if you cannot, then you must concede. [/quote]

I don't think I've ever declared it's in error. You have effectively established two poles of argument that don't exist. I think some has the possibility of error, but I won't question which. I'm just saying the Catechism isn't infallible in its entirety, though many things in there are very much infallible.

I cannot prove my contention that some could be wrong, but I can prove that it's not about faith or morals. I've stuck to everything I've said in this thread, but you have twisted what I'm saying to what you think [i]I[/i] think about the Church and Her Magisterium.

Just because part of the Magisterium is in error does not mean the whole Magisterium is in error. As humans they can make mistakes and the Catechism, last I checked, doesn't fall back on any of the infallibilities except those things that were already infallible. It doesn't declare anything new.

As far as not faith or morals, does the number of those with homosexual tendencies fall into these? I don't think so. There is that one phrase that says that the amount of these people are not negligible, but I'm pretty sure that's not infallible.

Edited May 11, 2006 by qfnol31

[Cam42]

[quote]No, if they're not necessarily true then they can be changed.[/quote]

And if that thing is changed according to your logic, then it is erroneous. It is simple, yet you continue to miss the brick wall you are banging your head against.

[quote]What if I agreed with this.[/quote]

I don't really care.....it would simply mean that you understood something, but since that won't happen, I don't really have to worry about it.

[quote]I'm just saying the Catechism isn't infallible in its entirety, though many things in there are very much infallible.[/quote]

Double speak.

[quote]I've stuck to everything I've said in this thread, but you have twisted what I'm saying to what you think I think about the Church and Her Magisterium.[/quote]

Nice attempt, but I don't buy it. I have actually shown you how your position has changed, however, you don't see it....whatever.

[quote]You have effectively established two poles of argument that don't exist.[/quote]

It wasn't me....I am simply responding to your posts....I didn't create anything, you did.

This thread isn't about a p***ing match between you and I, but rather it is a thread about trads.....I am not going over this with you again.....if you want to start a thread about the inerrancy about the Catechism, start one.....this is about traditionalism and ultra-traditionalism.....this is tiresome and circular (as most arguments are with you).

Thanks.

[dairygirl4u2c]

If you showed how that quote by mickey was in error, you could show how the catechism has an error. personally i still don't understand how you think it's in error from a catholic perspective. i'm pretty sure cam would like to see that explanation too. (he should have asked explicitly for it)

you could then distinguish between error in terms of faith and morals, and error in terms of style etc (which socrates etc even agreed can/is erronious). You could then realize that you were saying the catechism is not in error in terms of faith and morals, which cam thought you were saying, because you meant it was in error in terms of other "peripheral" (as soc put it) things.
I could be mistaken by what is transpiring but this seems to be the case and you are both too blinded by your egos to realize andor admit it.

Edited May 21, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

I thought we weren't supposed to discuss whether the CCC(or any other official document of the Vatican at this time) is valid or not? It's supposed to be considered valid and that is that. Isn't this against the rules?

[missionseeker]

I started it to ask a question but I knew it would turn into a debate but I started it a while back. I didn't think it would go this long on another subject.

[son_of_angels]

Cam (and all),

If something is not necessarily true, this does not mean that it is absolutely false.

For example, the catechism, as qfnol pointed out, states that "the number of persons with homosexual tendencies is not negligible." If, however, twenty years from now a wonder drug was invented which effectively limited same-sex attractions, then the opposite would be true, "the number of persons with homosexual tendencies IS negligible." Of course, this would be backed up with magisterial teaching and discipline and, while the catechism would remain "authoritative" in its treatment of many dogmatic issues, its understanding of homosexuality would be invalid, so the Catechism would be no longer a good treatment of the subject. It would be false in the sense of when it is being read, sure, but not NECESSARILY so.
Likewise, some of the applications of particular doctrines, especially those related to religious freedom and social justice might change in a different political climate, as they have done in the past. Properly speaking, judgments related to the death penalty are also not related to faith and morals, as the catechism itself relates, so the judgment that the death penalty should be rare could be changed given different national circumstances.

Of these sorts of things the Catechism is full, and therefore cannot be integrally infallible, unless its articles were solemnly proclaimed as such by an Extraordinary action of the Holy See, or approved from an Ecumenical Council in a dogmatic formula, which has neither been done.

Furthermore, I might mention that the development of doctrine is not simply blind acceptance of current papal thought or conjecture, but is something which develops from both the magisterium AND the sensus fidelium (an oft-abused term), expressed in faithful and dogmatically correct ways. The former may work for Opus Dei, but it is not the basis for condemnation and judgment. Even in accepting new expressions of doctrine from the Vatican, provided that a faulty understanding of them does not lead one to sin, one should still be circumspect so as to not assert something as having as much or more doctrinal weight than is accorded it by the Church. One MUST distinguish between what is and is not necessarily true.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='986589' date='May 21 2006, 05:37 PM'] I thought we weren't supposed to discuss whether the CCC(or any other official document of the Vatican at this time) is valid or not? It's supposed to be considered valid and that is that. Isn't this against the rules? [/quote]

I only got involved because I don't think it's a doctrinal debate.

[quote]A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of religious or the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/quote]

I'm not criticizing the Magisterium or the Novus Ordo or the Holy Father at all, but rather showing where their words are infallible, where they are authoritative, and where they are merely prudential.

Anyways, I wanted to show that the Catechism as a whole isn't infallible, as the Council of Trent as a whole isn't infallible, though many parts were. (Parts of Trent not infallible are the documents on the practice of Holy Communion under One Species, part of the Catechism that is not infallible is something based on the Code of Canon Law: "1401 When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions[font="Verdana"][size=2]238"[/size][/font]).

It isn't an argument about doctrine, but trying to change how the Church sees Herself and the Magisterium views things as the Catechism.

If there are things in the Catechism that are not necessarily true, then they may or may not be true. That is not for us to decide (except in the place where it is not a judgment of faith or morals). One false thing in the Catechism doesn't make the whole Catechism wrong. This is the nature of how the Church teaches.

[Cam42]

[quote]This thread isn't about a p***ing match between you and I, but rather it is a thread about trads.....I am not going over this with you again.....if you want to start a thread about the inerrancy about the Catechism, start one.....this is about traditionalism and ultra-traditionalism.....this is tiresome and circular (as most arguments are with you).

Thanks.[/quote]

What part of this statement didn't you understand? Start another thread, if you want to continue this. This thread is about traditionalism.

[son_of_angels]

Are you feeling grouchy Cam? Oh well...

I consider myself a "traditionalist" (and I mean to leave that in quotes), primarily because I attend a TLM, I utilize, perhaps, a more ancient form of piety (although I tend to emphasize daily scripture reading than most 1920 Catholics would). Nonetheless, I LOVE the Catechism, read books like "the Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith," have been known to support social justice programs, and try to attend at least one NO mass every couple of weeks. Why? Because this is the Church, and whether one agrees with what is being done or not.

Anyone who claims to be a "traditionalist," however, before he would claim the pope and his teachings, along with a good, measured acceptance of the Catechism, has some problems with his thinking. The Church doesn't go for sects....